Buying whores

Are you trolling? Considering Saudi Arabia has a massive influence on the world at large, I would say their society is pretty productive.

Because they're sitting above a sea of oil. If that weren't the case, well, they'd probably be just another podunk third-world goat-herding shit hole. "Feminist" Israel, on the other hand, is a cultural and technological powerhouse despite their acceptance of 'atraditional' gender roles. Why? because they have a strong sense of national identity and a culture that promotes excellence, not because they force women into motherhood.

Quote

If you think the primary point of getting married is to show how in love you are, you may as well write up a divorce letter now. Compatibility is not an innate value, that either exists or doesn't; it's a learned behavior. Considering that society's divorce rate is lower than ours, I'd say their marriages are more functional. Whether or not you agree with their concept of marriage is beside the point - you are trying to say it doesn't function, whereas it clearly does.

Divorce rates are just a number and do not bespeak of the most important aspect: quality of offspring. I don't have any studies to back this up, but it seems to me that children raised in a household where the parents voluntarily chose to live with one another would be more well-rounded than those raised in a household where the only thing keeping the marriage together is the threat of shame and ostracism. Besides, would you marry just any girl, or would you like to have a choice? How this isn't common sense is beyond me.

Quote

As to your third point, are you saying that the Middle East is absent of nurses, therapists, and schoolteachers? It's either that, which of course is nonsense, or you're instead saying that those societies suffer because men are doddering fools incapable of inserting an IV drip.

Strawman on both counts.

Men are perfectly capable of sticking an IV in a patient; that is but one side of nursing. However, women, being naturally more empathetic and extroverted, excel at the social aspect of patient care, which is what separates a good nurse from a great one, assuming that nurse is competent in the scientific aspect.

(I will admit that my post was hastily written. Women do in fact work as nurses and school teachers in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the middle-east.)

Quote

That sounds more like "raising the lesser sex" than "making men and women equal" - which is an asinine proposal anyway, not only because it requires eliminating the very concepts of masculinity and femininity in the first place(and thereby showing its true nature, which is misogynistic), but also because it is literally impossible.

I'm not a "left wing creationist". I realize that males and females differ biologically, psychologically, and spiritually. However, these differences do not need to be institutionalized as they are in the middle-east; instead, gender specific roles should exist as 'cultural recommendations', not laws. Furthermore, just as a man is free to choose whether or not to produce offspring (in which case he will hopefully devote his life to his career, religion, cause, etc; rather than hedonistic pursuits), so too should a woman be able to do the same. This is what is meant by equality. The pursuit of intellectual, political, or economic endeavors by women should, however, be seen a "special calling", rather than the de facto course of action as is promulgated by liberal sources.

Quote

Finally, if Western society is indeed more sustainable than the absolute patriarchy that obviously intimidates you, there is no reason to believe that this is due to women being able to vote. In fact, the West experienced great successes prior to women being given positions of power. Women were given voting rights in the USA around, what, the mid-19th century? So that's about 150 years? Whereas absolute patriarchy has existed in the Middle East -hell, most of the world- in an uninterrupted state for... millenia. A proven system sounds more sustainable than an unproven one to me.

The middle east never conquered the world (they had their chance in the middle ages but they fell to the Mongols), unlike Western Europe, which has typically had a more 'liberal' stance on woman's place in society, and even has a longstanding tradition of queens, empresses, and duchesses.

I agree that this modern feminism has to be reeled back in, but there is such a thing as a healthy feminism.

Quote

Reality is against you. Guess who wins.

A quaint turn of phrase. But let me offer you this as an answer: Who Dares, Wins

What the hell does Ada Lovelace have to do with feminism? You know what this sounds like? It's like when liberals say just because Dr. Blackperson got a PhD in physics, so can Da'Shwawn from the hood. A capable woman is not an argument for feminism, but an argument against.

A capable woman is not an argument for feminism, but an argument against.

Actually, a capable woman is the whole reason for feminism's existence. Early feminist movements were more about not treating women as second class citizens, not the third wave feminist man-hating drek you see today.

The Saudi's oil is going to dry up within the next century - I wonder what will happen to them then?

On the thread's topic: I've never bought a hooker, nor do I ever really plan to. Prostitution is distasteful, but I'd rather it exist and be regulated for safety than have it exist unchecked. Brothels and Huoooooorhouses are a good solution here.

Because they're sitting above a sea of oil. If that weren't the case, well, they'd probably be just another podunk third-world goat-herding shit hole. "Feminist" Israel, on the other hand, is a cultural and technological powerhouse despite their acceptance of 'atraditional' gender roles. Why? because they have a strong sense of national identity and a culture that promotes excellence, not because they force women into motherhood.

Two can play that game. If Saudi Arabia is influential ONLY because of the circumstances of their existence, then Israel is likewise only a powerhouse because of the circumstances of ITS existence - namely, massive financial and military support from the one and only nation that can truly be called a world power. Israel's success is definitely not due to feminism. What a ridiculous notion. If this were true, Canada, France, and Sweden would be at the top of the list instead of the relative nobodies that they are today. You even seem to understand this with the last sentence, so any reason you have for mentioning feminism in this context in the first place remains a mystery. It is irrelevant. Saudi Arabia's society works, and no, you cannot dismiss this fact away by pointing out their circumstances. Plenty of sub-Saharan nations are sitting on top of vast fields of natural resources as well; regardless, they remain a collective joke. Their societies don't work, Saudi Arabia's does.

Quote

Divorce rates are just a number and do not bespeak of the most important aspect: quality of offspring. I don't have any studies to back this up, but it seems to me that children raised in a household where the parents voluntarily chose to live with one another would be more well-rounded than those raised in a household where the only thing keeping the marriage together is the threat of shame and ostracism. Besides, would you marry just any girl, or would you like to have a choice? How this isn't common sense is beyond me.

It isn't common sense to you because you've been fed the idea that choice is your right as a human being. Rights do not exist, and if they do, every man is born with only one: the right to die. Other than this, every concept of what we deserve is a societal invention. Happiness is not found in getting what you want; it's found in accepting what you have. I suggest you actually find and socialize with some of the people in your town who still practice arranged marriage - there's bound to be some old-school Indians or Pakistanis enrolled in your local colleges' language courses. Go in without the blinders shrill harpies have put over your eyes and you'll find far more contentment than in couples who have to tread carefully lest the other consider divorce for reasons as trivial as "he's not the same person he was when we got married."

Also, nice ninja move - at one point you decry arranged marriage because it's not "true love,"(in itself a fallacious claim, as ACTUAL love has more to do with dedication and sacrifice than it does with emotional pleasure) and now you're saying you dislike it because of the children. Of course, children in societies that practice arranged marriage are unquestionably better-behaved than those in liberal ones. Unquestionably. You will NEVER see a child throwing a fit in the dirt of an African mud hut. Nor will you see such children growing up to be drug-addled losers. Here's a dose of common sense: some of this is because they are given responsibilities and expectations from a young age. Such as the knowledge that they are already betrothed, and had better find some manner in which to make the investment that other people put into them well worth it. Just as in our societies, children respond to structure and discipline a million times better than they do to the freedom to do as they please.

Quote

Strawman on both counts.

Men are perfectly capable of sticking an IV in a patient; that is but one side of nursing. However, women, being naturally more empathetic and extroverted, excel at the social aspect of patient care, which is what separates a good nurse from a great one, assuming that nurse is competent in the scientific aspect.

(I will admit that my post was hastily written. Women do in fact work as nurses and school teachers in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the middle-east.)

LOL it wasn't a straw man. It was what you said. The Middle East suffers because it doesn't let women fill said positions. That means that it either doesn't have anyone fill those positions, or that men are inept at filling them. Those are the argumentative prerequisites necessary to arrive at that position. It wasn't "hastily written," it was just plain wrong.

Quote

I'm not a "left wing creationist". I realize that males and females differ biologically, psychologically, and spiritually. However, these differences do not need to be institutionalized as they are in the middle-east; instead, gender specific roles should exist as 'cultural recommendations', not laws. Furthermore, just as a man is free to choose whether or not to produce offspring (in which case he will hopefully devote his life to his career, religion, cause, etc; rather than hedonistic pursuits), so too should a woman be able to do the same. This is what is meant by equality. The pursuit of intellectual, political, or economic endeavors by women should, however, be seen a "special calling", rather than the de facto course of action as is promulgated by liberal sources.

"Cultural recommendations" and "laws" are exactly the same thing. Laws do not exist divorced from the culture in which they emerge. In fact, it is exactly in those societies without "laws" as we know them where the consequences for going against them is the MOST severe. If Nagwa the spear-chucker's wife decides she doesn't want to have children anymore, and in fact deserves the same opportunity to be a spear-chucker too, that represents a severe cost to her husband, her children, and by extension to her tribe at large. She would be completely cut off if necessary, but of course it never is, because people accept their roles in places like this.

Quote

The middle east never conquered the world (they had their chance in the middle ages but they fell to the Mongols), unlike Western Europe, which has typically had a more 'liberal' stance on woman's place in society, and even has a longstanding tradition of queens, empresses, and duchesses.

I agree that this modern feminism has to be reeled back in, but there is such a thing as a healthy feminism.

First, Muslim societies didn't "almost" conquer the world. Whether in the form of Moors, Turks, or what have you, they were THE power in the Mediterranean until after the Renaissance was well under way. The Franks (as they collectively referred to Europeans) were seen as not only culturally inferior, but also technologically inferior; this attitude existed from the so-called Dark Ages well through the 15th century. The main reason they didn't completely conquer Europe was because they didn't see much reason to do so. The Byzantines did provide a small buffer, but you don't need much of one when you're not being pushed against particularly hard; they had plenty of wealth due to their geographic location, which allowed them to control all trade to and from the European continent. The reason for Europe's eventual success was, again, not feminism. It was Columbus' stupidity. He thought the world was a lot smaller than it was (everybody else knew he was wrong) and lucked out by finding a brand new continent - bingo, new source of wealth. Since the Muslim lands had no way of interfering with this new-found trade route, they began to shrivel up.

And longstanding tradition my ass. There is a longstanding tradition of male rule, with rare exceptions to this rule sprinkled here and there, which are remembered only BECAUSE they are rare exceptions. Get real. I bet you couldn't give me more than five seriously competitive female rulers off the top of your head without making justifications for their inclusion.

There is no such thing as healthy feminism. It is literally sick. It is a perversion of what is real. Here is what is real: men and women are different. Why should I treat different things as if they are the same? I'm not going to try to make an apple pie out of asparagus just because the asparagus is fickle and wants to be apples.

Actually, a capable woman is the whole reason for feminism's existence. Early feminist movements were more about not treating women as second class citizens, not the third wave feminist man-hating drek you see today.

fallot is absolutely correct. A capable woman IS an argument against feminism. Feminism does not exist to empower those women that are rare exceptions, are you kidding? If a woman is capable enough to fill the same position as a man, AND actually desires that position for reasons beyond wanting access to the no-girls-allows treehouse, she will prove that capability and be accepted on her own merits. The idea that a system is necessary to achieve this is nonsense. She will prove herself or she will not - that's it. Feminism exists to satiate the desires of those women who want more than they can get on their own merits. This is so obviously true that it bewilders me to see otherwise-intelligent people, such as yourself, stating otherwise. Capable people don't need help. Helpless people need help.

Actually, allow me to correct myself. Feminism does not exists to satiate women's desires. It exists to make people in power feel less guilty about their position. We live in a world where obedience is seen as weakness, authority is automatically considered suspicious, and faith is little more than a way to be criticized. Choice reigns supreme, and post-modern attitudes of "my choice is as valid as yours" is the natural consequence, even when that "my choice" is joining a LARP club and working as a gas station attendant because it's easier than having actual goals. So there is currently an immense push to force anybody who achieves more than this, and anyone who lives by the standards of strict masculine power, to feel guilty. Some succumb. Feminism emerges. If you think this is false, just ask yourself who gave women the vote. It wasn't women.

You can see, without looking too far, the effect that feminism has had, even among yourselves. There are probably better uses of your time. Stamp collecting, trainspotting, and similar manly pursuits...

Sorry for picking out a single line here but I'm getting kinda tired of reading this false argument (here and on other forums) Here's how it works: you are born, you grow up and you have a certain sense of fairness. This feeling of fairness is a human trait and necessary for our survival, without it we wouldn't even be able to reason let alone do things like trading with other humans or have any sense of discipline.

This is where the notion that "rights exist" comes from. These unwritten rights are merely a reflection of our sense of fairness (which of course can be completely distorted for whatever reason) We are free to disagree with others about whether something is a proverbial "god given" right but to deny such a thing exists is to deny humanity. Rights don't exist in Somalia, look what good it's doing for them.

As far as feminism and the destruction of society goes:

Feminism is fine with me. Good for women that they get to have rights, oh wow we sophisticated now. But the feminists and their handlers should have never torn down the traditional values that led to big families. The west is dying out as a result of this smear campaign and our grovelling politicians (all over the west) can only offer us the short-term solution of importing more workers instead of setting up decent breeding programs and re-focusing their propaganda tools on creating larger families.

We can all be equal to the law but the natural order is based on our inequality. So just do what you're good at whether that's being a good leader, a good doctor or being a good mother. Some women are better at being a leader than being a mother but they are the exception and not the rule. It's better to take pride in this: every good leader, every good doctor, every good person was raised by a good mother (and if they weren't they were lucky they didn't turn out psychopathic) The world needs more good people and men can't provide them, we're counting on you ladies.

That suggests rights do not exist beyond the societal level, which was what was stated. Umbrage, is this certain sense of fairness then the same or similar across the spectrum of humanity? Does it average out into a plurality of standards (which may still be somewhat similar) or just one, or none? Something being a right implies that it is owed, and by nothing less than society (which for most people means literal reality) itself. This isn't what we get out of your breakdown, so I think its reasonable to say rights don't exist.

How does that suggest that rights exist? Rights do not exist. I may be fair, but nobody has a right to my fairness.

Our sense of justice exists and is necessary for our progress as a species. How else could homo-sapiens and neanderthal have engaged in trade? They were two different species who were limited in their communication yet they could find agreement on what is fair when they were trading in a time without written law.

The rights only exist in the mind but nevertheless they still exist and they serve a function. That's all I'm saying. It's part of our thought process and reflects our character.

These are not rights, and I do not accept the assumptions you make about trading. Fairness has - or had - nothing to do with trading. White men traded worthless beads to red men in order to fleece them of their valuables. Red men eagerly scooped up the priceless beads in return for their own worthless junk. Each assigned value to what the other considered worthless. This is the nature of trade.

Fairness, of any kind, is illusion, and only exists at all because it is taught to the young. It is, to be sure, a useful concept, if civilization is the goal. In the absence of civilization, it is only a burden that costs more than it returns.

Overdo fairness, and civilization suffers, thus it is a double-edged sword. A little serves, while a lot destroys.

That suggests rights do not exist beyond the societal level, which was what was stated. Umbrage, is this certain sense of fairness then the same or similar across the spectrum of humanity? Does it average out into a plurality of standards (which may still be somewhat similar) or just one, or none? Something being a right implies that it is owed, and by nothing less than society (which for most people means literal reality) itself. This isn't what we get out of your breakdown, so I think its reasonable to say rights don't exist.

Yes not everybody has the same idea about what is fair but over the whole many people share the same values (don't eat your babies is a pretty decent one, don't beat your wife sometimes leads to disagreement, etc)

Rights are not owned. Rights are a belief. You can't physically own beliefs. We don't own laws either. Laws are created and then people are subjected to them. Even the creator of the laws and the people who enforce them can't be above those laws. If they are then it's called corruption. Dictators require the support of the people, the military and the industry just as much as any leader does. It will be the inherent sense of justice in the people that will cause them to embrace a new, less corrupt leader when he takes over. Whether it's through overthrowing the government or foreign intervention doesn't even matter at that point, so you can imagine the deep impact this sense of justice has. Would you tell that angry crowd that rights don't exist?

People don't share the same values, even a bit. This is why, for example, multiculturalism can never work, along with mass third-world immigration. I've travelled enough, and met with enough people, that this is abundantly clear. The very idea that everybody wants to live in peace and/or like us, is absurd to anyone with actual experience of diverse peoples.

All I see, among the chaos of society, is hordes of witless people who know nothing about anything, clinging to a house of cards, built from assumption piled upon assumption, and none of it real.

The cure for this is simple: as Lao Tzu suggests: Know Nothing! Meaning start again. Assume nothing. Forget all you think you know. Leave that fuckin' apple alone.

Logged

Phoenix

These are not rights, and I do not accept the assumptions you make about trading. Fairness has - or had - nothing to do with trading. White men traded worthless beads to red men in order to fleece them of their valuables. Red men eagerly scooped up the priceless beads in return for their own worthless junk. Each assigned value to what the other considered worthless. This is the nature of trade.

Fairness, of any kind, is illusion, and only exists at all because it is taught to the young. It is, to be sure, a useful concept, if civilization is the goal. In the absence of civilization, it is only a burden that costs more than it returns.

Overdo fairness, and civilization suffers, thus it is a double-edged sword. A little serves, while a lot destroys.

The nature of trade is surplus goods. What you are describing is the nature of con men.

I wouldn't call fairness an illusion either since illusions means being deceived by something or someone. Even if you think society is based on an illusion then at most you could argue that society is an illusion made real. Once it is real it is no longer an illusion, you can't argue that society doesn't exist.

Our sense of fairness is a motivation, that's all it is. And yes it is affected by upbringing and propaganda of course. It would be interesting to debate how much of that sense is natural (I'd say that's based on genetics) but most of that debate would be hypothesis since genetic studies aren't even fully accepted in the mostly politically correct world of science.

Rights and beliefs are double-edged sword but not in the way you put it. The double edge is that what you think is fair might not correspond with what someone else thinks is fair. Someone might think "hey food just grows on trees so we have a right to get free food from the supermarket!" We can see the flaw in his reasoning but who are we to say there are no rights when trying to debunk his argument? Why not instead just tell him to grow his own food or explain the basics of economics? (if he remains willfully ignorant then I believe in the right to restrain him to protect society from deteriorating)

There's this logical flaw about the "no rights" argument that irks me. If there are no rights then what gives you the right to tell people they have no rights? We're just talking about different values here.